PDA

View Full Version : Gun Owners of America Not Supporting Gun Rights for Legal Resident Aliens




axiomata
01-08-2011, 12:16 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/?cmpid=cmty_other_ACLU_Sues_to_Protect_Immigrant%2 7s_Gun_Rights_From_Change_in_South_Dakota_Law


The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a non-U.S. citizen that alleges South Dakota’s concealed weapons law is discriminatory – a legal move that one gun-rights group warns will open the door to arming illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit was filed this week on behalf of British national Wayne Smith, who legally immigrated 30 years ago, and for years was able to get a concealed license. In 2002, however, South Dakota amended the law, making U.S. citizenship a requirement to carry a concealed weapon. When Smith went to renew his long-held permit last July, he was denied because he is permanent legal resident, not a citizen.

...

"Legal resident aliens—that is, non-citizens who legally live in the United States—have constitutional rights. No one, for example, would say that a state could prohibit a legal resident alien from freely practicing his religion or engaging in free speech," Francisco told FoxNews.com. "Thus, if Mr. Smith does not have a criminal background or hasn't done anything else that disqualifies him from getting a permit, it's not clear to me how a state could prohibit him from getting a permit when it allows an otherwise similarly-situated citizen to get one."

...

"If you're a law abiding citizen and you're allowed to buy a gun you should be allowed to carry it to defend yourself," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulananda told FoxNews.com. "Just because you're not a us citizen doesn't mean that you're somehow to immune to crime outside your home."

But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens.

Anti Federalist
01-08-2011, 12:26 PM
A million injustices every year against gun owners.

The ACLU picks this one to fight in court.

*sigh*

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/art/ld/wedge_rev.gif

axiomata
01-08-2011, 12:36 PM
It is only a wedge if someone from our side in on the wrong side of the wedge. Otherwise it is just a triangular piece of steel.

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 12:38 PM
If you're a law abiding citizen and you're allowed to buy a gun you should be allowed to carry it to defend yourself," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulananda told FoxNews.com. "Just because you're not a us citizen doesn't mean that you're somehow to immune to crime outside your home."


Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".

axiomata
01-08-2011, 12:39 PM
Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".

Read it again. He's talking about two different people there. (It is not perfectly clear, I agree ... blame FoxNews' reporter)

First he's defending the existing right to conceal carry (for SD US Citizens). It, afterall, is a natural right, endowed by our Creator and protected by our government. It is not a privilege that the government grants us. But this right must necessarily also be naturally endowed to "All Men", including law-abiding resident aliens. Would you seek to prevent such a person from freely practicing his own religion, how about a trial by jury?

Here's Madison:


Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.

Anti Federalist
01-08-2011, 12:39 PM
It is only a wedge if someone from our side in on the wrong side of the wedge. Otherwise it is just a triangular piece of steel.

And just who determines that, hey?

axiomata
01-08-2011, 12:47 PM
And just who determines that, hey?

Feel free to make Pratt's case if you wish.

erowe1
01-08-2011, 12:51 PM
I would infer from Pratt's position on this that he opposes the idea of allowing concealed carry without any permit at all, which doesn't seem like him. Looks like he hasn't thought this through enough.

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 12:53 PM
But this right must necessarily also be naturally endowed to "All Men", including law-abiding resident aliens. Would you seek to prevent such a person from freely practicing his own religion, how about a trial by jury?

Sure, why not? they don't have a right to be in the US. We put other restrictions on resident aliens. I'd much rather the states be deciding this stuff than the feds.

Anti Federalist
01-08-2011, 12:55 PM
Feel free to make Pratt's case if you wish.

You just proved my point.

How do you know I support Pratt's position?

Agorism
01-08-2011, 01:00 PM
Incorporation (Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.) from the civil war means that the Bill of Rights also applies to the states meaning that if the federal government can't restrict arms then neither can the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

pcosmar
01-08-2011, 01:12 PM
You just proved my point.

How do you know I support Pratt's position?

I am not sure that I know what his position is. The quote is about the purpose of this lawsuit and not about gun rights in general.

If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?," Pratt told FoxNews.com.

Pratt says the only reason the ACLU brought the suit is to pave the way for illegal aliens to have conceal carry permits.

"They want to make it so illegal aliens have the same rights as everybody else...every little bit chipping away," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/#ixzz1ATLtqOu1

I think my position has been clear all along. I oppose all gun laws federal and state, and believe that virtually all state laws are the result of Federal mandates.

LibForestPaul
01-08-2011, 02:08 PM
for years was able to get a concealed license
If it is a license it is not a recognized natural right by the state.

So the only question is can a state bar privileges for certain individuals based on citizenship.

pcosmar
01-08-2011, 02:14 PM
If it is a license it is not a recognized natural right by the state.

So the only question is can a state bar privileges for certain individuals based on citizenship.

Only if you consider self defense to be a privilege.

erowe1
01-08-2011, 02:20 PM
If it is a license it is not a recognized natural right by the state.


Natural rights are only natural rights if they don't need any state to recognize them for them to be rights. States that don't recognize them are in the wrong.

agitator
01-08-2011, 02:20 PM
I would infer from Pratt's position on this that he opposes the idea of allowing concealed carry without any permit at all, which doesn't seem like him. Looks like he hasn't thought this through enough.

This.

If you're asking government for permission to do something, then it is a privilege, not a right.

osan
01-08-2011, 02:27 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/?cmpid=cmty_other_ACLU_Sues_to_Protect_Immigrant%2 7s_Gun_Rights_From_Change_in_South_Dakota_Law

Wow that the ACLU is taking up a gun issue and is apparently on the right side.

Wow that South Dakota is such a shit hole.

Wow that GOA are turning out to be such cretinous imbeciles.

Plenty of wow to go around here.

osan
01-08-2011, 02:32 PM
Thats the thing Andrew, they aren't a "law abiding citizen", they are a "law abiding resident".


WTF? Are you serious? If you subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights and that RKBA is inalienable, there is then NO justification for denying ANYONE their RKBA.

Free nations deal with what has happened, not what might. When Paco Taco robs grandma for her SSI check and kills her, you grab his natty hide, try him, convict him, jail him, and toss the key down a rathole. You do not punish those who have committed no offense.

HELLO.

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 02:34 PM
WTF? Are you serious? If you subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights and that RKBA is inalienable, there is then NO justification for denying ANYONE their RKBA.

Free nations deal with what has happened, not what might. When Paco Taco robs grandma for her SSI check and kills her, you grab his natty hide, try him, convict him, jail him, and toss the key down a rathole. You do not punish those who have committed no offense.

HELLO.
If he doesn't like it he can go back to his country of origin. I bet their gun laws are even stricter.

osan
01-08-2011, 02:35 PM
Sure, why not? they don't have a right to be in the US. We put other restrictions on resident aliens. I'd much rather the states be deciding this stuff than the feds.

A legal resident alien has no right to be in the US? What in hell are you smoking?

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 02:35 PM
A legal resident alien has no right to be in the US? What in hell are you smoking?

No, they have permission, not a "right".

osan
01-08-2011, 02:35 PM
If he doesn't like it he can go back to his country of origin. I bet their gun laws are even stricter.

Yeah, this is rational thinking.

Jesus.

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 02:36 PM
Yeah, this is rational thinking.
Jesus.
Are you suggesting he can't go home?

osan
01-08-2011, 02:37 PM
No, they have permission, not a "right".

They have no natural human rights? Is that your argument?

Jesus^2

BamaAla
01-08-2011, 02:38 PM
WTF? Are you serious? If you subscribe to the notion of inalienable rights and that RKBA is inalienable, there is then NO justification for denying ANYONE their RKBA.

Call me what you want, but I can't agree with that; in my humble opinion, there are a few people that should not have access to weapons. I'm sure that the vast majority of society agrees with me, and I fear that this kind of rhetoric can be counterproductive to those of us who fight for gun rights.

osan
01-08-2011, 02:39 PM
Are you suggesting he can't go home?

Why should be have to? Perhaps the USA is now his home - ever consider that?

It seems you harbor some serious us/them sentiments. You might want to talk to someone about that. Do as you wish, of course.

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 02:39 PM
They have no natural human rights? Is that your argument?
Jesus^2

Your position is that foreign nationals have a "right" to be in the US? I disagree with that statement.

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 02:40 PM
Why should be have to? Perhaps the USA is now his home - ever consider that?
It seems you harbor some serious us/them sentiments. You might want to talk to someone about that. Do as you wish, of course.

Yeah, move to another country, then complain cuz you can't get your way. That makes sense.

osan
01-08-2011, 02:41 PM
Call me what you want, but I can't agree with that; in my humble opinion, there are a few people that should not have access to weapons. I'm sure that the vast majority of society agrees with me, and I fear that this kind of rhetoric can be counterproductive to those of us who fight for gun rights.

Please enlighten us with the standard by which some people are denied RKBA. Regale us with the list of people who are to apply that standard and by what authority they objectively deny the basic rights of their fellows.

BamaAla
01-08-2011, 02:48 PM
Please enlighten us with the standard by which some people are denied RKBA. Regale us with the list of people who are to apply that standard and by what authority they objectively deny the basic rights of their fellows.

Violent criminals, mentally handicapped, and others should not have weapons. The only people that deny that are an extremely small group of people like yourself that ultimately paint all of us fighting for gun rights as looney tunes. Much like the in your face open carry advocates, all you do is set our cause back.

You can type about "basic rights" and other high strung philosophies all you want, but those of us that live in the real world are forced to seek real world solutions.

osan
01-08-2011, 02:58 PM
Your position is that foreign nationals have a "right" to be in the US? I disagree with that statement.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I explicitly write such a thing, nor could it be inferred from any passage of mine. We are speaking of people who are in the USA legally. What possible justification is there for denying them their rights?

RKBA is a HUMAN right - not an American one. Either you believe in human rights or you do not. There is nothing - absolutely nothing in between the two. The only alternative is privilege, which is based on the caprice of one group over another and nothing better.

osan
01-08-2011, 03:36 PM
Violent criminals

This is what I was afraid you would say. Let us recall the parameter was LAW ABIDING.

And when even a violent criminal pays his debt, are you suggesting his rights remain in a state of abridgment? If so, on what basis do you make such as assertion? Is it your belief that criminal debt has no satisfaction?


mentally handicapped

And who determines this and what is the standard?


and others should not have weapons.

What others?


The only people that deny that are an extremely small group of people like yourself that ultimately paint all of us fighting for gun rights as looney tunes.

Says you? You will have to do a lot better than this.


Much like the in your face open carry advocates, all you do is set our cause back.

Our cause? Speak for yourself. I do no compromise on that which bears it not. Those who do are fools and/or cowards, no offense.


You can type about "basic rights" and other high strung philosophies all you want, but those of us that live in the real world are forced to seek real world solutions.

It is precisely this brand of thinking that helped sell our rights down the river for a pittance. You can have it.

osan
01-08-2011, 03:37 PM
Yeah, move to another country, then complain cuz you can't get your way. That makes sense.

You're being disingenuous. Have a nice day.

BamaAla
01-08-2011, 03:42 PM
I think it's admirable that you hold uncompromising beliefs, but uncompromising beliefs don't accomplish anything but "at-a-boys" from other like minded people. I would love it if we didn't have to compromise in order to exercise our rights, but the fact is that, in this atmosphere, we have to. Just as our rights were chipped away at, we have to chip away to get them back.

Illinois and Wisconsin aren't going to wake up tomorrow and have unlicensed CCW; that's just the stone cold truth. I realize that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; however, a straight line is rarely available.

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 04:09 PM
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I explicitly write such a thing, nor could it be inferred from any passage of mine. We are speaking of people who are in the USA legally. What possible justification is there for denying them their rights?


Perhaps you should work on yours:




Sure, why not? they don't have a right to be in the US.
A legal resident alien has no right to be in the US? What in hell are you smoking?

They don't have a "right" to be here. They have permission to be here. Quite a difference.

HazyHusky420
01-08-2011, 04:25 PM
Perhaps you should work on yours:



They don't have a "right" to be here. They have permission to be here. Quite a difference.

Freedom of movement. Land is land (unless it's private property). Just get rid of the welfare state. I don't see what the big deal would be if you just got rid of the welfare system.

Nationalism is not libertarian, it's collectivist and causes wars.

specsaregood
01-08-2011, 04:36 PM
Freedom of movement. Land is land (unless it's private property). Just get rid of the welfare state. I don't see what the big deal would be if you just got rid of the welfare system.

Nationalism is not libertarian, it's collectivist and causes wars.

Well I consider the territorial boundaries of the US no different than private property and its citizens' its owners. So there you go.

ChrisKuper
01-08-2011, 04:50 PM
I am a full time employee of GOA. First I will say that I haven't read over all the comments. I'm just stepping in as an insider. First off, I have never heard Larry say anything to that effect. Larry and I, and everyone at GOA believes in Constitutional Carry, that is, concealed carry without a permit. Obviously we don't need permits to speak or to worship so we shouldn't need a permit to bear arms. I haven't spoken to Larry about this particular subject, this was just brought to my attention by a senior member. I had been following this story out of the corner of my eye but didn't realize that we had made a statement about it. My personal view (and many others at GOA) is that the RKBA is just that, a right. The Second Amendment didn't create that right it just acknowledge it's existence and dedicated that it would be protected, not regulated.

I wasn't aware that Larry had said this, and it seems to me that it was taken out of context. Our goal at GOA is simple, the eradication of every gun law. Our only exception is private property rules, for example, banks and restaurants have the right to ban the carry of weapons. So again, it would seem odd to me that Larry would say that. Does anyone have the source material where he was quoted?

Either way I will ask him about it on Monday. Hope that may clear a few things up.

HazyHusky420
01-08-2011, 05:05 PM
Well I consider the territorial boundaries of the US no different than private property and its citizens' its owners. So there you go.

Ever heard of individualism? It's a component of libertarianism.

puppetmaster
01-08-2011, 05:06 PM
I am a full time employee of GOA. First I will say that I haven't read over all the comments. I'm just stepping in as an insider. First off, I have never heard Larry say anything to that effect. Larry and I, and everyone at GOA believes in Constitutional Carry, that is, concealed carry without a permit. Obviously we don't need permits to speak or to worship so we shouldn't need a permit to bear arms. I haven't spoken to Larry about this particular subject, this was just brought to my attention by a senior member. I had been following this story out of the corner of my eye but didn't realize that we had made a statement about it. My personal view (and many others at GOA) is that the RKBA is just that, a right. The Second Amendment didn't create that right it just acknowledge it's existence and dedicated that it would be protected, not regulated.

I wasn't aware that Larry had said this, and it seems to me that it was taken out of context. Our goal at GOA is simple, the eradication of every gun law. Our only exception is private property rules, for example, banks and restaurants have the right to ban the carry of weapons. So again, it would seem odd to me that Larry would say that. Does anyone have the source material where he was quoted?

Either way I will ask him about it on Monday. Hope that may clear a few things up.

there ya go! less spin more truth...the way I like it

__27__
01-08-2011, 06:25 PM
Oh noes, the BROWN people want guns! We can't haz that shit. :rolleyes:

Racists...nationalists...statists...

Vessol
01-08-2011, 06:42 PM
Anyone has the natural right of self defense for their property and selves.

It doesn't matter what color of skin they have or where their parents fucked.

osan
01-08-2011, 07:08 PM
I wasn't aware that Larry had said this, and it seems to me that it was taken out of context.

The article states:

"But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens."

Fox does not quote him as saying this, which is abundantly suspicious. Did he or did he not say this? If he did not, I would have my lawyers look at it and if possible sue the pants off Fox.

Fox quotes Pratt as having stated:

"If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?," Pratt told FoxNews.com.

You have a legitimate point. I did not read with sufficient care and this possibility squeaked past me. If by chance Fox is playing games, then I retract my "cretin" remark and direct it to Fox, who are cretinous anyway.

osan
01-08-2011, 07:54 PM
I think it's admirable that you hold uncompromising beliefs

More people should, IMO.


but uncompromising beliefs don't accomplish anything but "at-a-boys" from other like minded people.

Says who? Seriously, what can you cite to back such a strong and broadly stated claim?


I would love it if we didn't have to compromise in order to exercise our rights,

It is ignorance, complacency and compromise that got us here. Do you honestly believe that more of the same will yield anything different? Please recall the definition of "insanity".


in this atmosphere, we have to.

To my mind this is the brand of thinking that is used as the excuse for giving in to tyranny. Better to have pretty slavery than ugly. Come on man, where is your mind? How far are you willing willing to cede your inborn, natural, and inalienable birthright? I am not willing to cede so much as an angstrom. Screw that noise. Nobody stand above me. Nobody runs me. Nobody masters me. They hold no authority over me whatsoever. All they have is force - unvarnished violence - and I stand and speak against it at every turn.


Just as our rights were chipped away at, we have to chip away to get them back.

This is a different sense altogether. Perhaps we have been talking past each other.

CCTelander
01-08-2011, 08:20 PM
Anyone has the natural right of self defense for their property and selves.

It doesn't matter what color of skin they have or where their parents fucked.


Absolutely.

Threads like this serve to strengthen my belief that when freedom actually does come here to the US, and it will, it will come IN SPITE OF the so-called liberty movement, not BECAUSE OF anything they've done.

__27__
01-08-2011, 08:25 PM
Absolutely.

Threads like this serve to strengthen my belief that when freedom actually does come here to the US, and it will, it will come IN SPITE OF the so-called liberty movement, not BECAUSE OF anything they've done.

++

ChrisKuper
01-08-2011, 09:10 PM
Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.

__27__
01-08-2011, 09:22 PM
Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.


So just to clarify, you believe that a human born on one side of an imaginary line has some set of special rights over another born on the other side of said imaginary line?

EDIT: Sorry, I guest I can't read, or maybe just can't comprehend. Didn't notice this was an email to you at first, maybe italics it or change color or something. >.<

Matt Collins
01-08-2011, 09:24 PM
Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.


Looks to me like Larry does not understand the concept of natural rights :( That is unfortunate because I completely disagree with him in this instance.

I do believe the government has the power to police their borders and decide who may and may not enter, but within the borders the Constitution protects everyone. Government doesn't grant rights, it merely protects them. Government can only grant privileges. I don't have a problem with government granting some privileges to citizens, but that doesn't mean it can disparage the rights of non-citizens.

Oh well, I still like Larry and the GOA. He's a great guy and it's a great organization and this one particular issue, although pretty substantial, is not going to deter me from my support.

muzzled dogg
01-08-2011, 09:29 PM
should i retract my life membership payments?

Matt Collins
01-08-2011, 09:40 PM
should i retract my life membership payments?
No, GOA gets it right about 99% of the time. Keep supporting them.

__27__
01-08-2011, 09:50 PM
should i retract my life membership payments?

You should do whatever YOU want to. Obviously Matt would tell you to keep paying. I would tell you to stop, but I would have said so even before this. Either way, you shouldn't listen to him or I, just yourself. ;)

ChrisKuper
01-08-2011, 10:14 PM
If you want to cancel your membership based on Larry's personal views then by all means you are certainly free to do so. The fact of the matter is such: Larry and I may differ on opinion from time to time on issues other than RKBA but our work speaks for itself.

If you feel strongly enough about it then do what you need to, I respect your decision.

puppetmaster
01-08-2011, 10:41 PM
Looks to me like Larry does not understand the concept of natural rights :( That is unfortunate because I completely disagree with him in this instance.

I do believe the government has the power to police their borders and decide who may and may not enter, but within the borders the Constitution protects everyone. Government doesn't grant rights, it merely protects them. Government can only grant privileges. I don't have a problem with government granting some privileges to citizens, but that doesn't mean it can disparage the rights of non-citizens.

Oh well, I still like Larry and the GOA. He's a great guy and it's a great organization and this one particular issue, although pretty substantial, is not going to deter me from my support.


+1

BamaAla
01-08-2011, 11:05 PM
Says who? Seriously, what can you cite to back such a strong and broadly stated claim?

Look around. Arguing for unfettered gun rights will do nothing but scare and motivate the anti-2a folks.


It is ignorance, complacency and compromise that got us here. Do you honestly believe that more of the same will yield anything different? Please recall the definition of "insanity".

I think we both agree that gun laws are too strict even if we disagree on the extent. Realizing that those laws are too strict, I'm willing to take inches if that's all that's available. An all or nothing attitude does nothing but polarize and entrench people.


To my mind this is the brand of thinking that is used as the excuse for giving in to tyranny. Better to have pretty slavery than ugly. Come on man, where is your mind? How far are you willing willing to cede your inborn, natural, and inalienable birthright? I am not willing to cede so much as an angstrom. Screw that noise. Nobody stand above me. Nobody runs me. Nobody masters me. They hold no authority over me whatsoever. All they have is force - unvarnished violence - and I stand and speak against it at every turn.

Good for you; I respect that. I simply think that there is another way to get things done. I recently worked with my state legislator to bring short barrel laws in line with national sbr laws. We got push back from the LEO organizations, but the bill passed and was signed into law. If we had taken a stance of no regulation on those weapons, we would have gotten nothing. Again, I respect your position, but I'm willing to take a pragmatic approach.

__27__
01-08-2011, 11:12 PM
Look around. Arguing for unfettered gun rights will do nothing but scare and motivate the anti-2a folks.



I think we both agree that gun laws are too strict even if we disagree on the extent. Realizing that those laws are too strict, I'm willing to take inches if that's all that's available. An all or nothing attitude does nothing but polarize and entrench people.



Good for you; I respect that. I simply think that there is another way to get things done. I recently worked with my state legislator to bring short barrel laws in line with national sbr laws. We got push back from the LEO organizations, but the bill passed and was signed into law. If we had taken a stance of no regulation on those weapons, we would have gotten nothing. Again, I respect your position, but I'm willing to take a pragmatic approach.

Murray N. Rothbard:

I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.

Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.

The same impression shines through the writing, say, of political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of "radical" is "conservative," where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.

To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the "model" of competing courts.

Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism" debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.

Toureg89
01-09-2011, 02:23 AM
Call me what you want, but I can't agree with that; in my humble opinion, there are a few people that should not have access to weapons. I'm sure that the vast majority of society agrees with me, and I fear that this kind of rhetoric can be counterproductive to those of us who fight for gun rights.

Wait so you think it's crazy that we should recognize the concealed carry rights of legal aliens, but you think it's perfectly fine that we recognize the rights of legal aliens to own submachine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers, and cannons/artillery?

Those who are against this have some serious realistic and philosophical hypocracies to work out.

Promontorium
01-09-2011, 06:08 AM
Osan, you know damn well no state in this nation fully recognizes the right to bear arms. Every one of them treats it as a privilige. This is not the opinion of anyone, and so if I tell you that bearing arms is a privilige in the US, it is not by my doing or even consent. Stop accusing every person who points out reality of causing it. Stop witch hunting forum members, and tear down your ugly ignorant straw men.

And no person has a "natural right" to citizenship. If you understood natural rights half as much as you type the words you'd understand you are implicitly declaring a definitively exclusive endevor must be allocated to all. No right can be that which takes from others, and as property can be private, so can clubs. Citizenship is a construct of social agreement, you can't force people to accept others, and no person has a right to social acceptance. You are as a petulant child on a playground telling a teacher to force the other kids to let you play. That is not a right. It cannot be a right, or such a word has no meaning.

God dammit of course every human naturally has rights, but you won't be making any friends intentionally distorting the specific distinction between what is natural, and what is artificial. Artificially, no one has the right to bear arms, just varying levels of leniency. Naturally, no man has a right to citizenship, but accepting a person, and then taking from them what they had is not just either, and so this man certainly shouldn't be prevented his rights, I have been a citizen of this nation since birth, and I will never be allowed a CCW, not because of the content of my character, but because of the state I reside in. Is the ACLU fighting for me too? No, it is a political ploy, but that's nothing new.

Toureg89
01-09-2011, 12:48 PM
And like I said, it us current legal reality that legal aliens are permitted to buy smgs, mgs, and grenade launchers. so how is it outside the realm of reality that we could successfully fight for legal aliens rights to conceal carry?

I would think getting Ron Paul elected would be even less of a possibility, so why the reluctance to fight for non Americans rights whose activities benefit America?

BamaAla
01-09-2011, 05:20 PM
Wait so you think it's crazy that we should recognize the concealed carry rights of legal aliens, but you think it's perfectly fine that we recognize the rights of legal aliens to own submachine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers, and cannons/artillery?

Those who are against this have some serious realistic and philosophical hypocracies to work out.

I have no problem with reality; actually, I think many of the people spewing "philosophy" have the break with reality. I work with my legislator on gun issues all the time; I live in the real world. Philosophy is fine and dandy and I fault no one for holding philosophical positions, but the fact is "natural rights" mean about as much as the boogeyman does in the real world.

You and whoever else can fault me for working with what we've got, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face just so I can hold up my philosophical integrity.

AxisMundi
01-09-2011, 06:33 PM
Read it again. He's talking about two different people there. (It is not perfectly clear, I agree ... blame FoxNews' reporter)

First he's defending the existing right to conceal carry (for SD US Citizens). It, afterall, is a natural right, endowed by our Creator and protected by our government. It is not a privilege that the government grants us. But this right must necessarily also be naturally endowed to "All Men", including law-abiding resident aliens. Would you seek to prevent such a person from freely practicing his own religion, how about a trial by jury?

Here's Madison:

Firstly, one cannot mix religion and government. Our government is secular to provide for religious equality and freedoms. Indeed, there are no mentions of any deity within the body of the Constitution, and the only mentions of religion, even prior to the BoR, seek to keep religion and government separate to preserve religious freedoms. That you believe in a demiurge is indeed your Constitutional Right. Not everyone believes in any creator deity, or deity at all. You certainly have a right to believe said demiurge has granted you certain rights. However, this belief does not weigh on legal matters in this Country. Our rights are decided upon by We the People in congress, and enforced by our government.

That said...

I do not believe that Constitutional Rights extend towards non-citizens, that any rights enjoyed by legal aliens are extended through mutual treaties with their home country. Treaties are, after all, are a matter of US Law. As the Constitution says, "We the People of the Untied States of America..." A legal alien cannot vote in National Elections (or local/state votes that require US citizenship) and is therefor not part of We the People.

Toureg89
01-09-2011, 10:09 PM
I have no problem with reality
then why no willingness to support legal aliens rights to CC?

if democrats and anti-gunners havent gone after legal aliens rights to own machine guns and grenade launchers, what makes you think trying to secure their right to Conceal Carry will spark some kind of catalyst of anti gun mentality, when anti government and anti democrat trends are at an all time high since the reign of Bush?

there's still a logical disconnect thats not being explained.

BamaAla
01-09-2011, 10:13 PM
then why no willingness to support legal aliens rights to CC?

They should be allowed to; I don't object to that.

james1906
01-09-2011, 11:01 PM
Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.

1. Bearing Arms is a fundamental right to all in this nation. It's not something left to the states. GOA is supposed to be fighting that fight.

2. While I understand the rationale of Pratt's argument, it's dangerous. This means this 'inalienable right' will require anyone to show papers to prove this 'inalienable right' applies to you.

3. Those in the country illegally are already breaking the law. Why would you think they'd apply for a CCL? They won't. However, the resident who came to this country by legal means cannot apply for an 'inalienable right,' and therefore would not be likely to carry concealed.

axiomata
01-09-2011, 11:07 PM
3. Those in the country illegally are already breaking the law. Why would you think they'd apply for a CCL? They won't. However, the resident who came to this country by legal means cannot apply for an 'inalienable right,' and therefore would not be likely to carry concealed.

A key point. The Mexican who waited in line to come in legally cannot legally defend himself from the illegal cartel dealer down the street who obviously isn't too worried about breaking the law.

__27__
01-10-2011, 12:56 AM
The willingness by some to subdivide human beings into categories and assign values to their lives and natural rights based solely on their place of birth is nothing short of appalling.

AxisMundi
01-10-2011, 03:31 AM
The willingness by some to subdivide human beings into categories and assign values to their lives and natural rights based solely on their place of birth is nothing short of appalling.

There is no such things as "natural rights".

Rights are determined by a consensus and enforced by government.

Travlyr
01-10-2011, 07:32 AM
There is no such things as "natural rights".

Rights are determined by a consensus and enforced by government.
That's wrong and too bad for you. AxisMundi, you have natural rights, you are just not willing to stand up for them because you don't know where they come from or what they mean. You don't mind being submissive to authority.

I enjoy my natural rights because I understand, exercise, and defend them. It's a choice that we all get to make.

Natural rights are inherent. The "Bill of Rights" simply recognizes certain unalienable rights as so important to humanity that they guarantee in writing that anyone who infringes on those recognized rights are in violation of the written social contract.

pcosmar
01-10-2011, 10:19 AM
There is no such things as "natural rights".

Rights are determined by a consensus and enforced by government.

Rights exist.
Like life or gravity. They are.
Government either protects or violates rights. It does not create them.

Pericles
01-10-2011, 11:05 AM
I think it's admirable that you hold uncompromising beliefs, but uncompromising beliefs don't accomplish anything but "at-a-boys" from other like minded people. I would love it if we didn't have to compromise in order to exercise our rights, but the fact is that, in this atmosphere, we have to. Just as our rights were chipped away at, we have to chip away to get them back.

Illinois and Wisconsin aren't going to wake up tomorrow and have unlicensed CCW; that's just the stone cold truth. I realize that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line; however, a straight line is rarely available.

Have they changed the state motto of Alabama?

JoshLowry
01-10-2011, 11:33 AM
Absolutely.

Threads like this serve to strengthen my belief that when freedom actually does come here to the US, and it will, it will come IN SPITE OF the so-called liberty movement, not BECAUSE OF anything they've done.++

Are you two trying to make the case that this place is a net negative in education and spreading the message?

I'd appreciate if you would both clarify.

There are new people to the movement that are learning and posting.

jmdrake
01-10-2011, 11:43 AM
The 2nd amendment was initially based in the militia. (Note the modern national guard is NOT the militia as defined by the constitution.) Were legal resident aliens meant to be mustered as part of the militia? If yes they fall under the 2nd amendment.

erowe1
01-10-2011, 11:56 AM
The 2nd amendment was initially based in the militia. (Note the modern national guard is NOT the militia as defined by the constitution.) Were legal resident aliens meant to be mustered as part of the militia? If yes they fall under the 2nd amendment.

When the Constitution was ratified anyone who had been born in another country before coming here would have been a legal resident alien. Wouldn't they? I don't think the category of illegal alien existed.

Pericles
01-10-2011, 11:59 AM
The 2nd amendment was initially based in the militia. (Note the modern national guard is NOT the militia as defined by the constitution.) Were legal resident aliens meant to be mustered as part of the militia? If yes they fall under the 2nd amendment.
I vote yes. Citizens have a duty to defend the community, legal residents have the right to do so.

AxisMundi
01-10-2011, 12:45 PM
That's wrong and too bad for you. AxisMundi, you have natural rights, you are just not willing to stand up for them because you don't know where they come from or what they mean. You don't mind being submissive to authority.

I enjoy my natural rights because I understand, exercise, and defend them. It's a choice that we all get to make.

Natural rights are inherent. The "Bill of Rights" simply recognizes certain unalienable rights as so important to humanity that they guarantee in writing that anyone who infringes on those recognized rights are in violation of the written social contract.

I am quite aware of both versions of "Natural Law". One is a philosophy devoid of religion, the other theosophy based on "inalienable rights endowed by the Creator".

Neither have any basis in law, although I will invite you to debate what you consider to be natural, inherent, inalienable rights and their source.

AxisMundi
01-10-2011, 12:46 PM
Rights exist.
Like life or gravity. They are.
Government either protects or violates rights. It does not create them.

Please show where I stated that g'ment "creates" rights.

ChrisKuper
01-10-2011, 12:48 PM
1. Bearing Arms is a fundamental right to all in this nation. It's not something left to the states. GOA is supposed to be fighting that fight.

2. While I understand the rationale of Pratt's argument, it's dangerous. This means this 'inalienable right' will require anyone to show papers to prove this 'inalienable right' applies to you.

3. Those in the country illegally are already breaking the law. Why would you think they'd apply for a CCL? They won't. However, the resident who came to this country by legal means cannot apply for an 'inalienable right,' and therefore would not be likely to carry concealed.

A friend on the hill emailed me today after jumping on the forums and asked why we were staying out of this fight. I will tell you the same thing I told him:

GOA is right in the middle of dozens of fights currently. My own personal reason for not fighting to be involved in this fight is simple. Why would we fight for a small percentage of persons to have the "privilege" of APPLYING for a shall issue permit. Should we spend countless donor dollars fighting for something that in the end might actually add new regulations to permits rather than subtract? I would rather spend my time and resources fighting for Constitutional Carry, something that is much more in line with a true understanding of the 2A and an effort that would make this problem null and void altogether.

I sympathize with the man, I really do. And I think it's shameful that this state, and many others like it have the audacity to decide arbitrarily who has the privilege of exercising natural and God given rights. But trying to convince them to lessen their grip is contrary to my beliefs. That belief being that they have no authority to the grip in the first place. Even those who agree with that 'radical' ideology still think that in the grand scope of things that this fight is a pragmatic avenue, I tend to disagree respectfully.

AxisMundi
01-10-2011, 12:52 PM
From Bouvier's...


CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.

2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that " the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.

3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.

4. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183 Metc. & Perk. Dig. h. t.; vide 3 Story's Const. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, 212; Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant.

(Please note this was written prior to the 13th and subsequent Amendments)

As a legal alien may not vote in National Elections nor hold office, they are not citizens and therefor not protected by the Constitution.

pcosmar
01-10-2011, 01:19 PM
Please show where I stated that g'ment "creates" rights.


Our rights are decided upon by We the People in congress, and enforced by our government.



No they are not. The purpose of government is to protect our Inalienable Rights.

It is not up for a vote.

jmdrake
01-10-2011, 01:23 PM
When the Constitution was ratified anyone who had been born in another country before coming here would have been a legal resident alien. Wouldn't they? I don't think the category of illegal alien existed.

Yeah, that sounds right.


I vote yes. Citizens have a duty to defend the community, legal residents have the right to do so.

You may be right. In fact that make sense. Note that I didn't answer the question myself. More important than the answer is how to frame the argument. If we are a constitutional movement we need to be able to argue everything from a constitutional point of view as much as possible instead of "This just sounds like a good idea".

Travlyr
01-10-2011, 01:53 PM
I am quite aware of both versions of "Natural Law". One is a philosophy devoid of religion, the other theosophy based on "inalienable rights endowed by the Creator".

Neither have any basis in law, although I will invite you to debate what you consider to be natural, inherent, inalienable rights and their source.
The law is irrelevant. I have a right to my life, movements, thoughts, speech, food, water, defense, creations, choices, and much more. I have responsibility for my rights as well. I don't need anyone's acceptance, understanding, or approval of them. They are mine because I claim them and I am willing to defend them.

osan
01-10-2011, 02:22 PM
We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

I disagree. The distinction is one of being or not being under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. If you are within the boundaries of the USA, you are under its jurisdiction. If you come from a nation where killing and eating your neighbor's children is deemed OK, you cannot behave in that manner whilst here, whether as a new citizen, legal resident alien, or just to see Disney World.

The Constitution recognizes and guarantees our natural rights. It also grants contractual rights. It would therefore follow that people here legally are entitled to exercise their natural rights while here - something they may not be able to do back home. Illegal aliens are rightly infringed because they have already violated our territorial sovereignty by coming here extra-legally. We infringe murderers and rapists while they remain under criminal penalty - so should be the case for illegals. If we fail to do so, then our national sovereignty becomes a pathetic joke.


The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens.Yes and no. Natural rights are for everyone, citizen or not. Contractual rights, which are really privileges, are for citizens only. The right to vote is a perfect example. Citizens are entitled to vote, whereas non-citizens are not.


Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms.This is tantamount to saying one has no right to life if they enter the USA and are not citizens. By this logic I am at my ease to go hunting British tourists at Marine Land.


The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case.I've not read their position as submitted to the court. Do you have a cite?


It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.No, they are not as per the above reasoning. Natural rights apply to ALL people and are protected for ALL people within the borders of the USA. Ifa British tourist is attacked on the streets of NYC and kills his attacker, he has acted well within his rights in so doing, all else equal. Or would you contend that he is obliged by law to stand by as the US citizen guts him like a fish?

The reasoning here is mighty backward.

oyarde
01-10-2011, 02:28 PM
Shall not be infringed .

virgil47
01-10-2011, 02:32 PM
Why should be have to? Perhaps the USA is now his home - ever consider that?

It seems you harbor some serious us/them sentiments. You might want to talk to someone about that. Do as you wish, of course.

If it is now his home why isn't he/she a citizen?

virgil47
01-10-2011, 02:35 PM
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I explicitly write such a thing, nor could it be inferred from any passage of mine. We are speaking of people who are in the USA legally. What possible justification is there for denying them their rights?

RKBA is a HUMAN right - not an American one. Either you believe in human rights or you do not. There is nothing - absolutely nothing in between the two. The only alternative is privilege, which is based on the caprice of one group over another and nothing better.

You are mistaken. If it truly was a human right then it would be a recognized "right" in every country on earth. To my knowledge only the U.S. has a second amendment.

osan
01-10-2011, 02:35 PM
Oh well, I still like Larry and the GOA. He's a great guy and it's a great organization and this one particular issue, although pretty substantial, is not going to deter me from my support.


It deters me. For pity's sake, this is so fundamental - so central to the very fabric of proper human liberty, that such a gross misunderstanding of such concepts begs too many questions to list here.

Larry may be a great guy, but I don't think I would want him speaking for me on such issues. Not a word until he got clued in as to what is right. You will forgive me if I point out just how irrational and xenophobic his letter reads. To read it, I would think it was some right-wing religious nut in way-northern Montana writing and not a presumably rational and well informed clarion of human rights.

Seriously folks, someone should take him out for a couple of beers, some good eats, and have a long and friendly talk with him about this because his letter reads to the scarier end of the spectrum. I'd even be willing to do it if he'd give me the time. A healthy dose of Socratic method might be all he needs to bring him around. One would hope, anyway.

virgil47
01-10-2011, 02:36 PM
You're being disingenuous. Have a nice day.

What? Can't answer his statement?

osan
01-10-2011, 02:40 PM
If it is now his home why isn't he/she a citizen?

Who cares why? It is not relevant. He is here, he is legal. He is presumably not a criminal. What's the fuss?

osan
01-10-2011, 02:41 PM
What? Can't answer his statement?

I can and have. I don't go in for wasting time on people who are either trolling or are otherwise unwilling or incapable of following a line of reasoning and responding to it rationally.

virgil47
01-10-2011, 02:43 PM
Wait so you think it's crazy that we should recognize the concealed carry rights of legal aliens, but you think it's perfectly fine that we recognize the rights of legal aliens to own submachine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers, and cannons/artillery?

Those who are against this have some serious realistic and philosophical hypocracies to work out.

With your line of thinking perhaps we should allow them to vote and run for office including the Presidency.

virgil47
01-10-2011, 02:44 PM
And like I said, it us current legal reality that legal aliens are permitted to buy smgs, mgs, and grenade launchers. so how is it outside the realm of reality that we could successfully fight for legal aliens rights to conceal carry?

I would think getting Ron Paul elected would be even less of a possibility, so why the reluctance to fight for non Americans rights whose activities benefit America?

Your statement is flawed. They may purchase the aforementioned items in "some" states but not all states.

dannno
01-10-2011, 02:46 PM
Your position is that foreign nationals have a "right" to be in the US? I disagree with that statement.

No, they have permission to be here, and humans have the right to defend themselves against aggression.

Edit: wow, i thought this was on page 5, not page 10.. jeebus

virgil47
01-10-2011, 02:47 PM
The willingness by some to subdivide human beings into categories and assign values to their lives and natural rights based solely on their place of birth is nothing short of appalling.

It would appear that you are a globalist in the truest sence of the word.

dannno
01-10-2011, 02:53 PM
It would appear that you are a globalist in the truest sence of the word.

No, that is a view that is about as anti-globalist as you can get. It is about sovereignty of the individual rather than sovereignty of the nation over the individual.

virgil47
01-10-2011, 02:59 PM
No, that is a view that is about as anti-globalist as you can get. It is about sovereignty of the individual rather than sovereignty of the nation over the individual.

Wrong answer bucko. His views express utter contempt for any governmental organization other than the one world-one people construct of globalism. Utopia can not exist as humanity will never allow it and rightfully so. Utopianism is the striving for mediocrity and mediocrity is the death knell of any civilized race or culture.

osan
01-10-2011, 03:13 PM
No, GOA gets it right about 99% of the time. Keep supporting them.


99% ain't good enough - not when they get issues like this so wrong.

osan
01-10-2011, 03:15 PM
no, that is a view that is about as anti-globalist as you can get. It is about sovereignty of the individual rather than sovereignty of the nation over the individual.
hello.

osan
01-10-2011, 03:16 PM
Wrong answer bucko. His views express utter contempt for any governmental organization other than the one world-one people construct of globalism. Utopia can not exist as humanity will never allow it and rightfully so. Utopianism is the striving for mediocrity and mediocrity is the death knell of any civilized race or culture.
Jesus Christ... could you please be a little more nonsequitur?

What in hell does any of this have to do with human rights?

osan
01-10-2011, 03:31 PM
Look around. Arguing for unfettered gun rights will do nothing but scare and motivate the anti-2a folks.

Our attempts at making them feel all warm and fuzzy got us here. No more. Not an inch by me. You may do as you will, of course, but I stand firm and I demand that my rights be respected in toto, anyone else's trepidation be damned.


I think we both agree that gun laws are too strict even if we disagree on the extent. Realizing that those laws are too strict, I'm willing to take inches if that's all that's available. An all or nothing attitude does nothing but polarize and entrench people.

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm speaking in terms of principle - not practical methods for realizing what is right. But even in practical terms, my speech will not bend to soothe the shaky nerves of cowards and imbeciles. I flatly refuse this, having lived a lifetime of patience and forbearance only to be shat upon by such poltroons time and again. They never have enough - "more more more" is their credo of insatiable avarice for the kowtow of every many to their gutless ideals. They may all march themselves straight to hell for all I care. Worthless sissies who would trample and trespass upon me and every man for the sake of quelling their pitiful and cowardly fear of the shadows - the black mists of "what-if?". No sir. No more. I'm DONE. I carry my gun and do so openly in most places. If someone doesn't like, they are free to walk away. I visit no harm upon anyone. I damned surely expect none to be visited upon me.

ChrisKuper
01-10-2011, 04:47 PM
Our attempts at making them feel all warm and fuzzy got us here. No more. Not an inch by me. You may do as you will, of course, but I stand firm and I demand that my rights be respected in toto, anyone else's trepidation be damned.



You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm speaking in terms of principle - not practical methods for realizing what is right. But even in practical terms, my speech will not bend to soothe the shaky nerves of cowards and imbeciles. I flatly refuse this, having lived a lifetime of patience and forbearance only to be shat upon by such poltroons time and again. They never have enough - "more more more" is their credo of insatiable avarice for the kowtow of every many to their gutless ideals. They may all march themselves straight to hell for all I care. Worthless sissies who would trample and trespass upon me and every man for the sake of quelling their pitiful and cowardly fear of the shadows - the black mists of "what-if?". No sir. No more. I'm DONE. I carry my gun and do so openly in most places. If someone doesn't like, they are free to walk away. I visit no harm upon anyone. I damned surely expect none to be visited upon me.

Well said.

AxisMundi
01-10-2011, 06:51 PM
No they are not. The purpose of government is to protect our Inalienable Rights.

It is not up for a vote.

Yes they are.

There is no such thing as inalienable rights.

I have already invited my colleagues on this site to prove otherwise.

AxisMundi
01-10-2011, 06:55 PM
The law is irrelevant. I have a right to my life, movements, thoughts, speech, food, water, defense, creations, choices, and much more. I have responsibility for my rights as well. I don't need anyone's acceptance, understanding, or approval of them. They are mine because I claim them and I am willing to defend them.

Go to any third world country devoid of a substantial government, if any, and see how quickly those rights you listed disappear.

Ask any reporter in the middle east, well, you can't ask them of course, who was beaten, starved, deprived of water, and beheaded how much his rights" mattered.

And like our Constitutional, Legal, and Civil Rights, they are crafted from opinion, just like you state your's are.

JoshLowry
01-10-2011, 07:16 PM
Go to any third world country devoid of a substantial government, if any, and see how quickly those rights you listed disappear.

Ask any reporter in the middle east, well, you can't ask them of course, who was beaten, starved, deprived of water, and beheaded how much his rights" mattered.

And like our Constitutional, Legal, and Civil Rights, they are crafted from opinion, just like you state your's are.

Just because a right is "inalienable" does not mean it is impossible to infringe upon.

Pericles
01-10-2011, 09:56 PM
Yeah, that sounds right.



You may be right. In fact that make sense. Note that I didn't answer the question myself. More important than the answer is how to frame the argument. If we are a constitutional movement we need to be able to argue everything from a constitutional point of view as much as possible instead of "This just sounds like a good idea".
I'd frame the argument in this manner: The Constitution is designed to limit government actions in order to maximize individual liberty. Legal residents who are non citizens have the same constitution protections as citizens, but do not have the privileges of citizenship (the right to vote and hold office, appointed to a position of trust [military officers and government officials], and possibly other privileges limited to citizens). Why would a legal resident non citizen have a different set of restraints placed on government in his case than that of a citizen? If there is a reason to deny rights, that should occur before granting residency. It is those who are present in the country without a legal basis, that may have a limited set of rights consistent with international standards of treatment, but have no claim for being accorded the rights of residents.

Incidentally as a legal resident of Switzerland (non Swiss citizen) I could own automatic weapons at one point (before the Swiss joined the Schlengen treaty), now just semis.

AxisMundi
01-11-2011, 12:39 PM
Just because a right is "inalienable" does not mean it is impossible to infringe upon.

If it is inalienable, ten it need not be enforced as everyone would recognize said "right".

AxisMundi
01-11-2011, 12:45 PM
I'd frame the argument in this manner: The Constitution is designed to limit government actions in order to maximize individual liberty. Legal residents who are non citizens have the same constitution protections as citizens, but do not have the privileges of citizenship (the right to vote and hold office, appointed to a position of trust [military officers and government officials], and possibly other privileges limited to citizens). Why would a legal resident non citizen have a different set of restraints placed on government in his case than that of a citizen? If there is a reason to deny rights, that should occur before granting residency. It is those who are present in the country without a legal basis, that may have a limited set of rights consistent with international standards of treatment, but have no claim for being accorded the rights of residents.

Incidentally as a legal resident of Switzerland (non Swiss citizen) I could own automatic weapons at one point (before the Swiss joined the Schlengen treaty), now just semis.

Certainly a reasonable and well stated argument.

A few details, whoever.

One cannot really compare our country to others where the Constitution is concerned. They don't use ours, and certain concepts are completely different (such as the level of religion in government that is acceptable).

Secondly, our government is We the People, who hire Elected Officials to represent us. A resident alien cannot vote in National, or many State, elections. They are therefor not We the People. Our Constitution, in this sense, limits the powers of We the People to infringe on our own Rights we have outlined and enumerated within the Constitution.

(My argument of course ignores other Rights not found within that document)

muzzled dogg
01-11-2011, 03:13 PM
did we get any clarification from GOA or their rep that posts here

ChrisKuper
01-11-2011, 05:39 PM
did we get any clarification from GOA or their rep that posts here

Here is Larry's response.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/11/goas-larry-pratt-says-he-suppo

axiomata
01-11-2011, 06:40 PM
Here is Larry's response.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/11/goas-larry-pratt-says-he-suppo

Thanks. To save others a click.


1. As I have stated all along, I do not agree with what South Dakota is doing in denying the right to keep and bear arms to alien residents. Wayne Smith SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN A GUN!

2. Our fundamental rights do NOT come from government, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. they come from God. Hence, law-abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed firearms as a matter of right (without permission from the government) and that is why GOA has consistently supported legislation modeled after Vermont's successful permitless carry law.

3. Aliens living in this country still possess their God-given rights.

Note, however, that within our constitutional system of government, some rights of citizenship (such as the right to vote) are fully protected only for actual U.S. citizens. This is, perhaps, where the confusion has arisen.

On the one hand, I argued that aliens should not be able to vote in our country. But fundamental human rights such as the right to self-defense as embodied by keeping and bearing arms, on the other hand, SHOULD MOST DEFINITELY extend to everyone, period.

4. As for the xenophobia that some have accused me of because of the misunderstanding relating to Wayne Smith, well, that's laughable. I've been happily married to a Central American immigrant for nearly 50 years—and I fully support her right to keep and bear arms as much as I support Smith's.

AxisMundi
01-11-2011, 07:55 PM
Thanks. To save others a click.

I would like for this person to prove his god in a court of law.

Stating that "God" has given people rights is a belief, not a fact, and certainly does not pertain to discussions regarding Rights or facts.

Gideon
01-11-2011, 10:00 PM
But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens.

"If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?," Pratt told FoxNews.com.

Pratt says the only reason the ACLU brought the suit is to pave the way for illegal aliens to have conceal carry permits.

"They want to make it so illegal aliens have the same rights as everybody else...every little bit chipping away," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06/new-aclu-lawsuit-expand-south-dakota-gun-rights/#ixzz1An35iWUc

Pratt makes some succinct points worthy of re-evaluation, especially the mention of incrementalism.

Within a sovereign state, citizens have rights above aliens, thus making this is a BoR article 10 State issue.

pcosmar
01-11-2011, 10:10 PM
I would like for this person to prove his god in a court of law.

Stating that "God" has given people rights is a belief, not a fact, and certainly does not pertain to discussions regarding Rights or facts.

http://barryjohnsonpitching.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Horses-ass.jpg


AxisMundi; can only hope to improve

:(

virgil47
01-11-2011, 10:24 PM
I would like for this person to prove his god in a court of law.

Stating that "God" has given people rights is a belief, not a fact, and certainly does not pertain to discussions regarding Rights or facts.

I would like very much like to see you prove that God does not exist in a court of law!

HazyHusky420
01-11-2011, 10:32 PM
I would like very much like to see you prove that God does not exist in a court of law!

Which god?

The Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan or personal gods?

HazyHusky420
01-11-2011, 10:34 PM
Rights are rights. It shouldn't matter where they come from.

The idea that they come from the Christian god sounds theocratic and the idea that they come from government is just as scary if not more.

virgil47
01-11-2011, 11:01 PM
Which god?

The Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan or personal gods?

Choose one any one and prove he, she or it does not exist. It is just as difficult to prove the non existence of a deity as it is to prove that it exists.

HazyHusky420
01-11-2011, 11:11 PM
Choose one any one and prove he, she or it does not exist. It is just as difficult to prove the non existence of a deity as it is to prove that it exists.

I happen to be a deist and I happen to agree, but the state can't prove it either.

Why is this even being discussed?

pcosmar
01-11-2011, 11:22 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
You either do, or you don't.
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you do not believe this you are in the wrong place.

AxisMundi
01-12-2011, 01:22 PM
I would like very much like to see you prove that God does not exist in a court of law!

Firstly, you are taking to a Theist, not an Atheist. But I do admit that there is no proof of any deities, mine or yours.

However, when the only prove offered for Jehovah (The god of Abraham that Jews, Christians, and Muslims look to) is the Torah, bible, and Quran, it is quite easy to disprove said scriptures as anything approaching self-supporting evidence. This destroys the ONLY evidence offered.

Your turn.

AxisMundi
01-12-2011, 01:22 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
You either do, or you don't.
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you do not believe this you are in the wrong place.

Wrong place? Define "wrong place".

Anti Federalist
01-12-2011, 02:55 PM
Yes they are.

There is no such thing as inalienable rights.

I have already invited my colleagues on this site to prove otherwise.

Just because short sighted people can try to "vote" their rights away or tyrannical people can "take" rights away does not mean that they are not inherent and inalienable by virtue of the Creator, or, if you don't believe that, by virtue of being born a human being.

jmdrake
01-12-2011, 03:11 PM
I would like for this person to prove his god in a court of law.

Stating that "God" has given people rights is a belief, not a fact, and certainly does not pertain to discussions regarding Rights or facts.

The drafters/signers of the declaration of independence used the word "God". Feel free to substitute "creator" or "mad scientist" or "nature". The points the same. There are some rights that people naturally aspire to regardless of whether or not they were "told" by government that they should have them. Take life for instance. Self preservation is an instinct. And the fact that a right might be infringed on doesn't change the fact that the desire for that right is innate and that an oppressed people will eventually assert it.

Toureg89
01-13-2011, 05:21 PM
With your line of thinking perhaps we should allow them to vote and run for office including the Presidency.
really? the Bill of Rights grants people the right to be eligible for political office? the Founding Fathers believe in God given rights as the right to run for political office?

stretching. stop doing it.

virgil47
01-13-2011, 07:49 PM
really? the Bill of Rights grants people the right to be eligible for political office? the Founding Fathers believe in God given rights as the right to run for political office?

stretching. stop doing it.

My point was where do we draw the line? If you are willing to do what it takes to become a citizen you then get the rewards of being a citizen. As far as the right to self defense goes resident aliens do indeed have the right to defend themselves but not with a concealed firearm as that has been historically reserved for citizens. If resident aliens find that objectionable...too bad! If a person has been a green card holder for 30 years they obviously prefer to be a citizen of their country of origin and not of the U.S.

Toureg89
01-14-2011, 04:37 PM
we draw the line at HUMANS HAVING RIGHTS, NOT AMERICANS.

so long as a human is in america legally, citizen or not, he should enjoy his rights.

virgil47
01-14-2011, 07:40 PM
we draw the line at HUMANS HAVING RIGHTS, NOT AMERICANS.

so long as a human is in america legally, citizen or not, he should enjoy his rights.

So do his "rights" include being the President or a congressman or a senator. No they do not! His "rights "also do not include carrying a concealed weapon. He may purchase firearms and may openly wear them if the state he resides in is an open carry state! Carrying a concealed weapon is not a human right but having a weapon for self defense is. Can you not see the difference between the two?

Toureg89
01-14-2011, 08:26 PM
doesnt the constitution clearly lay out the eligibility requirements to hold office?

and what reasons are there to preclude aliens from concealed carrying? tell me why?

/facepalm

osan
01-14-2011, 08:37 PM
Yes they are.

There is no such thing as inalienable rights.

I have already invited my colleagues on this site to prove otherwise.

This should prove amusing - if only for 10 or 15 seconds...

LibForestPaul
01-16-2011, 02:01 PM
Legal aliens can not vote. So even if it is a natural right, apparently, natural rights have precedent as being reserved for citizens.

axiomata
01-16-2011, 02:27 PM
Not sure why you are convinced that voting is a natural right.

pcosmar
01-16-2011, 03:11 PM
My point was where do we draw the line?

Shall not be infringed.


If you are willing to do what it takes to become a citizen you then get the rewards of being a citizen. As far as the right to self defense goes resident aliens do indeed have the right to defend themselves but not with a concealed firearm as that has been historically reserved for citizens. If resident aliens find that objectionable...too bad! If a person has been a green card holder for 30 years they obviously prefer to be a citizen of their country of origin and not of the U.S.
"historically reserved for citizens"
You have a very short view of history.
Historically, anyone could buy a weapon of any type and carry it in any manner they choose.
untill 1934. The GCA.
This was after the Socalist Coup of 1913.

osan
01-16-2011, 03:20 PM
Just because a right is "inalienable" does not mean it is impossible to infringe upon.

HELLO. Precisely stated.

Most people appear to have very poor language skills, thanks in large part to our fabulous public schools. "Inalienable" does NOT mean "inviolable" as a matter of material possibility, but only as a point of moral, legal, and ethical rectitude. If a man shoots another in the head for no apparent reason, he has violated the victim's inalienable right to life. Having so violated, it does not follow that the deceased's right did not exist. The method of invalid argumentation that holds otherwise does, IIRC, have one of those Latin names that I cannot currently dredge up. By such argumentation I can rob a bank and claim there is no law against which I have acted. Try using such an argument in court and see where it gets you. This is rank, prima facie stupidity of the first order.

In this regard, "inalienable" means that a right cannot be LEGITIMATELY violated by any means whatsoever. It speaks purely to the issue of legitimacy and not to material possibilities.

Some people are so ignorant I cannot help but wonder how they make it from one day to the next without managing to kill themselves accidentally. Seriously, it perplexes me.

osan
01-16-2011, 03:28 PM
Legal aliens can not vote. So even if it is a natural right, apparently, natural rights have precedent as being reserved for citizens.

Voting is a natural right?

Whatever it is that you are smoking, you probably need to stop.

pcosmar
01-16-2011, 03:47 PM
Some people are so ignorant I cannot help but wonder how they make it from one day to the next without managing to kill themselves accidentally. Seriously, it perplexes me.

I often wonder that myself.

virgil47
01-16-2011, 10:47 PM
Shall not be infringed.

"historically reserved for citizens"
You have a very short view of history.
Historically, anyone could buy a weapon of any type and carry it in any manner they choose.
untill 1934. The GCA.
This was after the Socalist Coup of 1913.

The second amendment applies to citizens not those that would leech off our society. Don't like the word leech then what else do you call someone that has lived here for 30 years but refuses to become a citizen. Also someone who wants the laws of our country changed to accommodate his desires.

LibForestPaul
01-17-2011, 08:11 AM
Voting is a natural right?

Whatever it is that you are smoking, you probably need to stop.

So you are saying it is not a natural right. That rulers can self appoint themselves? That I have no say in the authority of the state?

P.S. Don't smoke.

So yes, voting those who have the power of the state behind them is a natural god-given right.

Pericles
01-17-2011, 12:06 PM
The second amendment applies to citizens not those that would leech off our society. Don't like the word leech then what else do you call someone that has lived here for 30 years but refuses to become a citizen. Also someone who wants the laws of our country changed to accommodate his desires.
No - his request is for the government to treat him the same as everyone else in regards to a carry permit. Voting is one of the privileges of citizenship. (Art. IV Sec.2) As states determined the qualifications for voting in their respective states ........ now subject to the various Amendments.

Summary - all persons within the US have the same basic rights, legal residents (citizens and non citizen) have additional rights, and citizens have privileges of citizenship (vote and hold office).

virgil47
01-17-2011, 07:42 PM
No - his request is for the government to treat him the same as everyone else in regards to a carry permit. Voting is one of the privileges of citizenship. (Art. IV Sec.2) As states determined the qualifications for voting in their respective states ........ now subject to the various Amendments.

Summary - all persons within the US have the same basic rights, legal residents (citizens and non citizen) have additional rights, and citizens have privileges of citizenship (vote and hold office).

No his request is to treat him as if he were a citizen with respect to concealed carry. He is requesting something he has not earned.

pcosmar
01-17-2011, 08:40 PM
No his request is to treat him as if he were a citizen with respect to concealed carry. He is requesting something he has not earned.

Carrying a gun is not a privilege. It is a right. Gun Licensing and CCW permits are an Infringement.
They are a fully illegal violation of the Constitution. Period.

virgil47
01-17-2011, 09:19 PM
Carrying a gun is not a privilege. It is a right. Gun Licensing and CCW permits are an Infringement.
They are a fully illegal violation of the Constitution. Period.

That is true as far as it goes. That right does not include everyone on earth.

osan
01-18-2011, 02:14 PM
So you are saying it is not a natural right.

That is precisely what I am saying. Voting is a contractual right that comes with citizenship. Aliens, legal or otherwise, are not allowed to vote or hold public office. Denying them this contractual entitlement does not rob them of any natural right whatsoever.

A "natural" right is an organic right, which is to say a right that is inherent to our fabric as beings. Contractual rights such as voting, are artificial - synthetic in nature and ostensibly arise out of agreement. If tomorrow we tossed out the Constitution and instated a King - an absolute monarch - your voting rights would vanish as if they had never existed, whereas your equal claim to life would remain intact as would all your natural rights. The King might see fit to toss you in a dungeon or behead you, but that would not mean that you forfeited your rights - only that they were forcibly violated.


That rulers can self appoint themselves?

In principle it could happen. Congress could this very day amend the Constitution to make it so. If the states go along with it, your say in who rules is screwed to the wall like a coon hide.


That I have no say in the authority of the state?

You do by virtue of a combination of your natural and contractual rights.



So yes, voting those who have the power of the state behind them is a natural god-given right.

No, it is not. See above.

LibForestPaul
01-18-2011, 07:19 PM
That is true as far as it goes. That right does not include everyone on earth.

Actually, it does. They are mine when I am born. Every Chinese, American, Indian, Iranian human is born with THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS. And those rights do not change FROM STATE TO STATE.

LibForestPaul
01-18-2011, 07:21 PM
That is precisely what I am saying. Voting is a contractual right that comes with citizenship. Aliens, legal or otherwise, are not allowed to vote or hold public office. Denying them this contractual entitlement does not rob them of any natural right whatsoever.

A "natural" right is an organic right, which is to say a right that is inherent to our fabric as beings. Contractual rights such as voting, are artificial - synthetic in nature and ostensibly arise out of agreement. If tomorrow we tossed out the Constitution and instated a King - an absolute monarch - your voting rights would vanish as if they had never existed, whereas your equal claim to life would remain intact as would all your natural rights. The King might see fit to toss you in a dungeon or behead you, but that would not mean that you forfeited your rights - only that they were forcibly violated.

LOL Contradicting your own logic.

virgil47
01-19-2011, 07:37 PM
Actually, it does. They are mine when I am born. Every Chinese, American, Indian, Iranian human is born with THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS. And those rights do not change FROM STATE TO STATE.

The right to self defense does include everyone however the right to carry concealed does not include everyone. If you feel otherwise feel free to change the existing law but don't be obtuse. A foreign national simply does not have that "right" under our law and no amount of saying "well they should" will make it so.

HazyHusky420
01-19-2011, 07:43 PM
A foreign national simply does not have that "right" under our law and no amount of saying "well they should" will make it so.

What about the business owner? Why should someone selling guns be burdened with such regulations? And what about freedom of association? I'm a citizen but what if I happen to hang around an "illegal"? Should I be blind folded and shot for "treason"?

virgil47
01-19-2011, 07:48 PM
What about the business owner? Why should someone selling guns be burdened with such regulations? And what about freedom of association? I'm a citizen but what if I happen to hang around an "illegal"? Should I be blind folded and shot for "treason"?

What in the he!! does that statement have to do with green card holders being granted concealed carry permits?

HazyHusky420
01-19-2011, 07:52 PM
What in the he!! does that statement have to do with green card holders being granted concealed carry permits?

Why should there be permits for carrying weapons in the first place? Unregulated open carry is the only libertarian position.

virgil47
01-20-2011, 07:16 AM
Why should there be permits for carrying weapons in the first place? Unregulated open carry is the only libertarian position.

I have no complaint with that statement however that is currently the law. If you can change it more power to you!